Will—Construction—Ademption—Gift of share and interest in Crown leasehold property owned in common with sister—Gift of share and interest in livestock, plant, etc. on property at decease of testatrix and &hich should be owned in common with sister or should form portion of assets of partnership between testatrix and sister in existence at decease of testatrix—Entirety of leasehold and other property acquired by testatrix between will and death—Rights of specific and residuary beneficiaries—Wills Act, 1936-1940 (S.A.), ss. 26, 27.

Decisions

1964, February 25.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
DIXON C.J. This is an appeal as of right from an order of the Supreme Court of South Australia made on originating summons. The originating summons sought the determination of certain questions and matters arising out of the will of Hilda Clara May Jones deceased who died on 25th November 1960. The will was executed on 20th February 1956. At that time the testatrix was a lessee as tenant in common in equal shares with a sister named Stella Mary Marguerite Stockman. This was a Crown Perpetual Lease of land situated at Paratoo. The property was known as Oak Park. It was situated in the Counties of Herbert and Kimberley and comprised 18,400 acres. On the land the sisters carried on a grazing and livestock business in partnership. The partnership was dissolved on 16th December 1959. On the dissolution the land and certain pieces of working plant were sold by auction on 3rd December 1959. According to an affidavit supporting the summons "At the said auction which was held on the 3rd day of December 1959 the whole of the interest of the said Stella Mary Marguerite Stockman in the said land and in some of the items of working plant belonging to the partnership was purchased by the testatrix who also by arrangement with her said sister acquired by way of purchase from her said sister her said sister's one half interest in the livestock implements machinery farming and grazing stores stocks and provisions and in the balance of the items of working plant belonging to the partnership. In the events which have happened the testatrix at the date of her death was the sole registered lessee of the said land and the owner of the assets referred to above." By her will the testatrix gave the whole of her estate to her trustee (the plaintiff in the summons) "Upon trust as to all my share and interest in the Leasehold property situate at Paratoo in the said State known as Oak Park and being Block 16 Counties of Herbert and Kimberley containing Eighteen thousand four hundred acres or thereabouts which said property is owned by me in common with my sister Stella Mary Marguerite Stockman and all my share and interest in the livestock working implements and machinery and in the farming and grazing stores stocks and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Pohlner v Pfeiffer

Details

AGLC: Pohlner v Pfeiffer [1964] HCA 8
Case: [1964] HCA 8
Decision Date: 25 February 1964

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pohlner v Pfeiffer concerned a dispute between the parties regarding a contract for the sale of land. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the contract for the sale of land was void for uncertainty, specifically concerning the description of the land. The court was required to determine if the description provided in the contract was sufficiently clear to identify the subject matter of the sale.

The High Court held that the description of the land in the contract was sufficiently certain to be enforceable. The court applied the principle that a contract for the sale of land will not be void for uncertainty if the description, when read in conjunction with surrounding circumstances or by reference to external facts, allows the land to be identified with reasonable certainty. In this instance, the court found that the description, despite its initial ambiguity, was capable of being rendered certain by reference to extrinsic evidence.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the contract.

Orders